本文選題：資格刑 + 資格罰��； 參考：《華南理工大學(xué)》2016年博士論文

【摘要】：資格刑作為剝奪犯罪人法定資格的刑罰方法,在國(guó)外刑法制度中已占有一席地。我國(guó)《刑法》沒(méi)有明確提出資格刑的概念,但資格刑制度卻由來(lái)已久。普遍認(rèn)為,剝奪政治權(quán)利和驅(qū)逐出境屬于我國(guó)資格刑制度的范疇。資格刑在應(yīng)對(duì)利用資格實(shí)施的犯罪或者侵犯他人資格的犯罪方面,具有不可或缺的刑罰功能。完善我國(guó)資格刑制度不僅是有效控制特定犯罪的需要,也是我國(guó)刑事制度改革的重要內(nèi)容之一。筆者認(rèn)為,資格刑制度的完善不能只局限于對(duì)現(xiàn)有資格刑的改良,還需要挖掘和充實(shí)更多新型資格刑制度內(nèi)容。本文基于對(duì)資格刑基本理論的理解以及對(duì)我國(guó)現(xiàn)行資格刑制度存在問(wèn)題的解析,展開(kāi)對(duì)我國(guó)資格刑制度完善的討論。首先,本文在闡述資格刑制度的刑罰屬性和國(guó)外資格刑制度成熟經(jīng)驗(yàn)的基礎(chǔ)上,剖析了我國(guó)現(xiàn)行資格刑制度的合理性和局限性。并在對(duì)資格刑制度自身的利弊進(jìn)行比較之后,指出了完善我國(guó)資格刑制度的必要性。其次,本文以刑罰功能和刑事政策理論為分析工具,著重闡述了資格刑制度存在合理性的法理根據(jù)。同時(shí)還從法經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)角度,分析了資格刑在控制自身制度成本和犯罪成本方面的優(yōu)勢(shì),為資格刑制度存在的理論根據(jù)充實(shí)新的內(nèi)容。再次,論文針對(duì)我國(guó)現(xiàn)行刑法中規(guī)定的剝奪政治權(quán)利和驅(qū)逐出境兩種資格刑性質(zhì)的刑罰制度作了合理性和局限性評(píng)述,并指出了改革兩種刑罰制度的必要性和可行性。同時(shí)也對(duì)剝奪軍銜和剝奪勛章、獎(jiǎng)?wù)潞蜆s譽(yù)稱(chēng)號(hào)是否可以被納入我國(guó)資格刑制度范圍作了比較詳細(xì)的論證,闡述了剝奪軍銜應(yīng)當(dāng)作為資格刑回歸到刑法規(guī)范當(dāng)中的法理依據(jù),也提出了剝奪勛章、獎(jiǎng)?wù)潞蜆s譽(yù)稱(chēng)號(hào)非刑罰措施的種種理由。復(fù)次,在對(duì)資格刑制度內(nèi)容整合和擴(kuò)充方面,本文有別于傳統(tǒng)移植國(guó)外立法經(jīng)驗(yàn)的研究方法,從我國(guó)現(xiàn)有的法律法規(guī)中挖掘可以作為資格刑內(nèi)容的法律資源,其中刑法修正案中的“禁止令”和“禁止從事職業(yè)”等非刑罰處置措施,以及廣泛散落在各種行政法律法規(guī)中的“行政資格罰”是我國(guó)資格刑內(nèi)容擴(kuò)容的主要資源。最后,本文重點(diǎn)闡述了資格刑的適用方式和適用依據(jù)。在適用方式方面,與現(xiàn)行刑罰制度規(guī)定的一旦適用資格刑將剝奪犯罪人全部資格的適用方式相比,論文確立的“分立剝奪方式”更能體現(xiàn)資格刑的刑罰價(jià)值。在適用依據(jù)方面,與現(xiàn)行刑法制度規(guī)定的以“犯罪社會(huì)危害性”和“主刑種類(lèi)”作為資格刑適用依據(jù)相比,論文確立以“犯罪性質(zhì)”和“犯罪人格”作為資格刑的適用依據(jù)顯然更加嚴(yán)謹(jǐn)、科學(xué)。此外論文還提出完善資格刑的減刑制度和復(fù)權(quán)制度作為解決資格刑“處罰過(guò)�！钡挠行e措。
[Abstract]:Qualification penalty, as a penalty method of depriving the offender of his legal capacity, has occupied a seat in the foreign criminal law system. The concept of qualification penalty is not clearly put forward in Criminal Law of our country, but the system of qualification penalty has a long history. It is generally believed that deprivation of political rights and deportation belong to the category of qualification penalty system in China. Qualification penalty plays an indispensable role in dealing with crimes committed by means of qualifications or crimes against the qualifications of others. Perfecting the qualification penalty system is not only the need to control the specific crime effectively, but also one of the important contents of our country's criminal system reform. The author believes that the perfection of the qualification penalty system should not only be limited to the improvement of the existing qualification penalty, but also need to excavate and enrich more contents of the new qualification penalty system. Based on the understanding of the basic theory of the qualification penalty and the analysis of the existing problems in the current qualification penalty system in China, this paper discusses the perfection of the qualification penalty system in our country. Firstly, on the basis of expounding the penalty attribute of the qualification penalty system and the mature experience of the foreign qualification penalty system, this paper analyzes the rationality and limitation of the current qualification penalty system in our country. After comparing the advantages and disadvantages of the qualification penalty system, the author points out the necessity of perfecting the qualification penalty system in our country. Secondly, based on the function of penalty and the theory of criminal policy, this paper focuses on the legal basis of the rationality of the qualification penalty system. At the same time, from the angle of law and economics, this paper analyzes the advantages of qualification penalty in controlling its own system cost and crime cost, which enriches the new content for the theoretical basis of the existence of qualification penalty system. Thirdly, the thesis comments on the rationality and limitation of the penalty system of deprivation of political rights and deportation, and points out the necessity and feasibility of reforming the two kinds of penalty system. At the same time, it also makes a detailed demonstration on whether the deprivation of military rank and medal, medal and title of honor can be included in the scope of our country's qualification punishment system, and expounds that the deprivation of military rank should be regarded as the legal basis for the return of the qualification penalty to the norms of the criminal law. Reasons for disenfranchisement, medals and honours are also given for non-penal measures. Again and again, in the aspect of integrating and expanding the content of qualification penalty system, this paper is different from the traditional research method of transplanting foreign legislative experience, and excavates the legal resources which can be regarded as the content of qualification penalty from the existing laws and regulations of our country. Among them, the non-penalty measures such as "prohibition order" and "prohibition of occupation" in the amendment of criminal law, and "administrative qualification penalty", which are widely scattered in various administrative laws and regulations, are the main resources for the expansion of the content of qualification punishment in our country. Finally, this paper focuses on the application of qualification penalty and applicable basis. In the aspect of application mode, compared with the existing penalty system that once the qualification penalty is applied, it will deprive the offender of all the qualifications, the "separate deprivation mode" established in this paper can reflect the penalty value of the qualification penalty more. In terms of the applicable basis, compared with the existing criminal law system, "the social harmfulness of crime" and "the type of the main punishment" are used as the basis for the application of the qualification penalty. It is more rigorous and scientific to establish the criminal nature and criminal personality as the applicable basis of qualification penalty. In addition, the paper also puts forward to perfect the commutation system of qualification penalty and the system of reinstatement as an effective measure to solve the excess penalty of qualification penalty.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：華南理工大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2016
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D924.1

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前6條

1 彭文華;;我國(guó)刑罰體系的改革與完善[J];蘇州大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2015年01期

2 李海瀅;麻銳;;腐敗犯罪控制視野下的資格刑研究[J];法學(xué)雜志;2009年07期

3 張蓉;;論職務(wù)犯罪刑罰體系的調(diào)整——刑事政策視角下之比較研究[J];湖北社會(huì)科學(xué);2008年09期

4 吳平;;澳門(mén)的資格刑立法研究[J];天津市政法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2006年01期

5 王俊平;;資格刑比較研究[J];岳麓法學(xué)評(píng)論;2003年01期

6 于志剛;復(fù)權(quán)制度適用問(wèn)題研究[J];法學(xué);2002年02期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前4條

1 劉娜;刑罰威懾效能實(shí)證研究[D];武漢大學(xué);2014年

2 宋長(zhǎng)海;刑罰與行政罰關(guān)系研究[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2011年

3 蔡一軍;刑罰配置論綱[D];吉林大學(xué);2009年

4 李震;論刑罰輕緩化[D];山東大學(xué);2008年

，

本文編號(hào)：1949299